On the path and career of a fine artist

[FallenGodX11]

I am an art student pursuing on the path to fine art. However I wonder if fine artist can really make a living just painting what they want? My teacher, Ron Lemen once told me what I wanted to do with my art, and I told him I wanted to be a fine artist, but he kinda hesitated for a moment and asked, if you had a second choice as an artistic profession, what would you do? I told him I would do illustration. I've told other artists what I wanted to do, and I got the same response. One painter told me, its very hard to make a living as a fine artist and it is better to make a living as a commercial artist and do the fine art as a retirement. Randy Bantog, a teacher I took at Laafa, told me the same thing and said if I want to do fine art I would have to teach to make a living on the side. Ever since then, I've rethought about my path as an artist. I am open to do commercial art, but I do want to make a living as a fine artist.

Some other concerns I have about being a fine artist would be to attain skill and vision. When I look at all of my favorite artists, like Durer, Ingres, Da Vinci, Waterhouse, and Gylre, I wonder if I can attain their skills or take my art beyond their level? I keep practicing and drawing, but I can never be sure if my drawings are sufficient enough. I ask if there is a higher power or form of art, and there still is. It's good to have a high perception and beware of the limits of my work. I've seen artist who have limited insight about what's out there, and they think their work is fine as it is. However if they think that, they could never improve or push the possibilities even further.

However skill is not everything in art, it is the process, the means in which we achieve the goals in art, not the end. If art was all skill, then all art would become a standard, everyone would look the same or they would compete for the same thing. It wouldn't be about ideas. I've seen a lot of ateliers in the internet and the students who go into those schools, like Florence Academy, Angel Academy, or Grand Central Academy and they produce stunning work and stuff that I want to have, like the ability to do still lives, figures, portraits and landscapes, but it is not what I want in the end. I want the ability to do all those things, but I don't want the limitations.
Especially when I want to paint beyond what I see and say something.

[Hyskoa]

Just get a second job to pay the bills and keep working on your art in your free time until you can pay the bills with your art alone.

I want the ability to do all those things, but I don't want the limitations.
Then do so.

[jdalton]

There's a lot to be said for creating multiple revenue streams (most of the gallery artists I know personally have fingers in illustration or comics or teaching or design or something else). And gallery art is probably the hardest of all artistic fields to make a living at. But I've failed at enough compromise careers to believe that whatever you care most about as an artist should be your main drive. If that's gallery art, put that at the top of your list and keep it there permanently. Competing against illustrators for whom illustration is their first love can be really tough. Not impossible, but tough.

[dumpling]

"Some other concerns I have about being a fine artist would be to attain skill and vision. When I look at all of my favorite artists, like Durer, Ingres, Da Vinci, Waterhouse, and Gylre, I wonder if I can attain their skills or take my art beyond their level?"

I don't want to speak for every fine art course out there, but the chances are if you want to have that great technical capability, a fine art course might not the right path to take. Fine art "teaches" everything but technical skill. My only advice would be to look at the tutors work, look at the students work - are they producing something you love and want to learn how to do?

"However skill is not everything in art, it is the process, the means in which we achieve the goals in art, not the end. If art was all skill, then all art would become a standard, everyone would look the same or they would compete for the same thing. It wouldn't be about ideas. I've seen a lot of ateliers in the internet and the students who go into those schools, like Florence Academy, Angel Academy, or Grand Central Academy and they produce stunning work and stuff that I want to have, like the ability to do still lives, figures, portraits and landscapes, but it is not what I want in the end. I want the ability to do all those things, but I don't want the limitations."

I completely agree, but I think you're a little misguided. Learning what they teach at the ateliers is by no means a "limitation", it's quite the opposite, when you think about it. They're teaching you the foundations of art and equipping you with the technical skill to use how ever you wish down the line. Sure, their students work might look all the same whilst there, but what might they be doing 5 or 10 years down the line? Look at it this way, they are all learning under the same teachers, doing the same figures, using the same techniques and doing the same assignments. It's no a surprise many of the works are similar, but that's what they're there to learn. It's after this training that it's up to the artist to use those skills however they wish. And it's with this technical mastery over his tools that an artist can truly be free.

[FallenGodX11]

There's a lot to be said for creating multiple revenue streams (most of the gallery artists I know personally have fingers in illustration or comics or teaching or design or something else). And gallery art is probably the hardest of all artistic fields to make a living at. But I've failed at enough compromise careers to believe that whatever you care most about as an artist should be your main drive. If that's gallery art, put that at the top of your list and keep it there permanently. Competing against illustrators for whom illustration is their first love can be really tough. Not impossible, but tough.

Hmm... That's true, I would like to do concept art and illustration on the side, but I don't think I would like to compete with those artist who have a great passion for it. I would like to dabble in it, but I feel that the work I put into it would be halfhearted.

[FallenGodX11]

"Some other concerns I have about being a fine artist would be to attain skill and vision. When I look at all of my favorite artists, like Durer, Ingres, Da Vinci, Waterhouse, and Gylre, I wonder if I can attain their skills or take my art beyond their level?"

I don't want to speak for every fine art course out there, but the chances are if you want to have that great technical capability, a fine art course might not the right path to take. Fine art "teaches" everything but technical skill. My only advice would be to look at the tutors work, look at the students work - are they producing something you love and want to learn how to do?

"However skill is not everything in art, it is the process, the means in which we achieve the goals in art, not the end. If art was all skill, then all art would become a standard, everyone would look the same or they would compete for the same thing. It wouldn't be about ideas. I've seen a lot of ateliers in the internet and the students who go into those schools, like Florence Academy, Angel Academy, or Grand Central Academy and they produce stunning work and stuff that I want to have, like the ability to do still lives, figures, portraits and landscapes, but it is not what I want in the end. I want the ability to do all those things, but I don't want the limitations."

I completely agree, but I think you're a little misguided. Learning what they teach at the ateliers is by no means a "limitation", it's quite the opposite, when you think about it. They're teaching you the foundations of art and equipping you with the technical skill to use how ever you wish down the line. Sure, their students work might look all the same whilst there, but what might they be doing 5 or 10 years down the line? Look at it this way, they are all learning under the same teachers, doing the same figures, using the same techniques and doing the same assignments. It's no a surprise many of the works are similar, but that's what they're there to learn. It's after this training that it's up to the artist to use those skills however they wish. And it's with this technical mastery over his tools that an artist can truly be free.

I do agree with you on the ateliers that, I've probably misjudged the concept of a limitation. They are teaching the foundations of art and they learn from the same person, so it would be no wonder that they look the same. I guess we can't judge how an artist will turn out during their training, but only after.

[DavePalumbo]

its very hard to make a living as a fine artist and it is better to make a living as a commercial artist and do the fine art as a retirement

this is basically the same as the stereotypical parental advice to practice law or something and save art for retirement because it's too scary.

I will agree though, living off of gallery sales is a rough business because it's all speculative. Leaving out the politics and nonsense that are generally associated with that field (which you may or may not really have to deal with), it's still one of the more unpredictable avenues of an unpredictable career path (being a professional artist). If you like realism, which I gather you do, alot of gallery artists also do portraiture. Also, many teach on the side as a way of keeping some kind of stable and regular income.

Whatever else you might decide to do to fill out possible dry times between shows, the important thing is being driven and focused. The fine art business is at least half marketing when it comes to building a successful financial career, so be prepared for that. Read up (besides contemporary art magazines and such, I recommend How To Survive and Prosper as an Artist (http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Prosper-Artist-Yourself/dp/0805088482/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241720595&sr=8-2)), visit galleries, go to openings, try to talk to people who are making their living in that way (both artists and gallery directors). I think that's often the best way to go. Getting advice from other students and from teachers who don't work in that field is dodgy, and often they either don't know what they're talking about or are too bitter about their own fears/failures to give an honest picture.

[Grief]

thanks for that book suggestion dave!

sometimes i think that there should be a fine-art discussion related section of the forum, for those of us who want to exhibit in galleries and deal with curators and directors, etc. it could help talk people through the process of approaching a gallery, how to tailor your portfolio, news and the current state of exhibitions and trends and so on....

... and this all sounds fine in theory, but whenever a thread pops up on CA related to fine art everyone hops aboard the 'screw fine-art' bandwagon and will rant on and on about how messed up and backwards everything is. its a bit scary to me in that so many people (on this site even!) are hostile to the idea of selling art in a gallery. its good to hear people's opinions, but you really need to keep in mind some of them have no personal experience at all in anything related to fine-art, but their platform and voice is just as loud and as strong as anyone else because they know it all! (no one in this thread mind you)

this thread over here was particularly disgusting to me on so many levels:
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=157180

its the one about Hockney's latest digital paintings, which are.... in their infancy. first off he's an old man and lauding his work with meaning is how he sells himself, and it is an important attribute for anyone trying to get their name known. yet everyone looks at his awful digital paintings and instead of saying "i hope i am as able to explore new methods of working throughout my life, let's hope he gets better with the medium" people say things along the lines of "this old windbag is full of shit and people like him and warhol killed art by making it a business". there's an open hatred for fine art on this site. its easy to become jealous to all the recognition fine-artist appear to receive, and the people here are VERY literal with their work, so any hidden concepts, or god forbid a statement, is seen as detracting from the work itself.

this community has a major weakness and prejudice against abstract and work which has a concept which might not be gleaned from a quick glance. there are some really amazing intelligent voices on these forums, but a lot of them get buried by a wave of generalized semi-educated opinions (mine included)

sorry for being off topic and getting into tangents, but i really am interested in the fine-art world. it is what i want to do in life. i do not want to work for a game company, i do not want to sit at a computer and do special effects for movies, i don't care about cgi and 3d rendering, that's not me, and there are THOUSANDS of people on this site who can take that role for me. i'm not knocking commercial art by any means, and they are perhaps wise in their more realistic approach to making a living with their artistic talent, but it still aggravates me when they assault fine-art as being any less work.

i think there are scant few on this site who aim to be full time studio artists who exhibit in galleries. i have been in over a dozen group exhibitions, and had two solo student shows (nothing fancy by any means), i worked as a gallery production assistant and curated student shows. i'm familiar with the process on a small scale, but i have no clue as to how this experience translates into the real world. i say this because i want you to understand that i can relate to the uncertainty and general feeling of being lost and not knowing where to begin.

it really comes down to a willingness to work. you do not need to be the best artist. you do no need to have the most unique and alluring style. you do not need a profound and groundbreaking concept.

you are not going to submit to major galleries and become a rock-star artist overnight. CA will tell you that fine artists are lazy and talentless who take a crap on a plate and put a sparkler in it and call it art. you are going to work your ass off for a thankless job for years upon years, allthewhile getting rejection letters at every turn. your art will be in coffee shops and dingy small poorly lit galleries.

i suggest you read magazines like Juxtapoz. (for the most part) they interview contemporary artists who are young and are usually still rough around the edges, i find it refreshing to see that there are people still out there toiling away at their craft and getting a little exposure and a cult like familiarity behind them. like dave said, go to gallery openings and talk to people. email them, ask about portfolio submissions and keep in touch. networking and communicating with pople working in the field is an essential step in establishing yourself into the career as a fine artist. (this is what i am stll working on, while i recieve letters of 'ewww no thanks not what we are looking for' and flat out rejection)

i say go for it and all the best to you.

[arttorney]

this is basically the same as the stereotypical parental advice to practice law or something and save art for retirement because it's too scary.

Ha ha ha, Law is plenty scary, believe you me! In the case of the majority of folks, their parents probably mean well. Take parent's wishes under advisement but don't take their wishes as commands. You're the one who has to live your life when all is said and done.

Just advance confidently in the direction of your dreams and endeavor to live the life you have imagined.

[Equality72521]

Grief did a good job saying it like it is.

yes, you dont need to know exactly how the femur connects the pelvis and how it would look in perspective, that's more for the figurative artists who are in illustration and comic books. Just paint how you think the leg should go, or paint it how it should NOT go. Sometimes its more liberating to be a fine artist than illustrator.

If Im not careful, this thread will turn into "which kind of art is better: Illustration or Fine Art?" Each type has their own rules and guidelines. For Instance, if this were a true fine art forum, the Critique Center would be more for the enhancement of ideas the artwork more so than the proportions or perspective of the subject. Get it? Current artwork shown in galleries are more about the artist's statement. Their artwork is a catalyst for the ideas they want to present. This is where the confusion is. As illustrators, we look for a story in a painting, and it must be recognizable for it to be an illustration. When a fine artist looks at a painting, he wants to get inside the mind of the artist, fell his/her emotion while painting it, get his/her mind around this concept the artist just presented to them. But instead of that idea be in a book, it is on a painting.

Think like this: Do you think authors bicker on what makes a book? "War and Peace" is a book just like "Everybody Poops" is a book. Sure, different genres, but its still a book. There are good and bad books, just like paintings, but again, still a book.

Im sorry, I wander is my musings. The whole point of this is to help make you think on what you are producing. Why are you painting in thick, heavy brushstrokes on a portrait of a child? It it to signify that child has a welling up of emotions and your job as the artist to depict that in a way that is not obvious? Its small things like this that get the viewer to THINK, and that is, for the most part, what drives the fine art community.


on Hulu.com there is a series called Art:21 and revolves around the stories and reasonings of artists in the fine art world, and you will notice its more about the reasoning behind what they do.

art21 on hulu (http://www.hulu.com/art21-art-in-the-twenty-first-century)

and for humor, sometimes we all can be like this towards fine art

w9SlCtIz0j4

[FallenGodX11]

Wow, thanks Grief and DavePalumbo. Your advices help. I also wonder about some other things about gallery work. I've often heard that some galleries will make you paint what sells, like cowboys and pretty pictures, instead of something personal. Is that really true?

[RyerOrdStar]

I am so glad Grief said something. I have been wanting to say exactly what he said for a while now. Almost regularly there's some dingbat who makes a thread called "I don't get Fine ARt" or "Fine art sucks, AMIRITE???", and a bunch of clueless people join in on the hate, then the very same professionals who are in CONCEPT ART and who these people idolize post and say that there's nothing wrong with fine art, and it all gets ignored because the masses have decided to join the stupidwagon.
Through no fault of the awesome professionals that come here, the site's general opinion I think has swung over too far the other way, into hate territory for anything non realistic.
There's nothing wrong with caring more about ideas than how to paint the texture on your lycanthropic bug monster.

[Pic]

people say things along the lines of "this old windbag is full of shit and people like him and warhol killed art by making it a business".

I think this is directed at me : /..but oddly enough I am training as a fine art sculptor myself and am very passionate about working within the fine arts. It's just in England, the old YBAS and curators have such a strongly felt influence in the art schools as well as the galleries its hard to push for anything that isn't conceptualism, it's made me a bit bitter, but I do feel its time for a new fine arts movement.

I think that if you want to study and apply yourself to fine art you really should, but you have to be dedicated and really push for it and want it.

Also there is quite alot of PR involved, networking and the like, which is a bitter pill but its one everyone who wants to work in the fine arts has to swallow, unfortunately it is not always about the quality of your work.

And having it as your sole source of income will be difficult, possible, but difficult, unless you really are the one who pushes for it madly and gets a few breaks along the way. Teaching is something alot of fine artists do, it's best to have your thumb in a few pies like others have said here.

[DavePalumbo]

I've often heard that some galleries will make you paint what sells, like cowboys and pretty pictures, instead of something personal. Is that really true?

I think your choice in gallery plays a big part in this sort of thing, and generally a gallery won't take you on unless you're already showing them something they think they can sell. Once you've established a relationship with a gallery, it may come up as harmless and benign as "that painting of yours we just sold had alot of interest, we'd love to have more from you like that piece". I've never encountered anything more forceful than that personally, but I guess maybe it happens. I've heard stories too, but never anything with much substance. In the end, you decide what you want to paint. If your gallery doesn't think they can sell your work anymore you may just have to find a new gallery. Whether you're doing commissions or selling in a gallery, nobody is "making" you paint anything, remember that. Maybe bribing you, but never forcing you ;)

[Pic]

sometimes i think that there should be a fine-art discussion related section of the forum, for those of us who want to exhibit in galleries and deal with curators and directors, etc. it could help talk people through the process of approaching a gallery, how to tailor your portfolio, news and the current state of exhibitions and trends and so on....

Also I second this, I feel i'm getting my views across badly and coming across as an anti-fineart jerk but such a forum would really be useful to people in the fine arts and/or studying it.
This forum is very focused on critique things on a technical level, which is fair enough, things are more clean cut when it comes to critiquing technical skill but critiquing fine art can be like trying to net a cloud.

The current 'Fine art, Studies & discovery' forum we already have doesn't quite seem to cover it, i know i don't post any of my sculpture exactly for the reason i don't think it would go down well here.

And access to information as to how to get into the fine arts after studying is limited, everything I've gained from talking to fine artists is basically already been put in this thread, and i would be interested in what experiences people like Grief who are trying now has had exactly. Such a place would be so helpful in so many ways.

That being said it is a concept art website, does anyone know a site with the level of critique you get here, dedicated to fine art?

[Jasonwclark]

This forum is very focused on critique things on a technical level, which is fair enough, things are more clean cut when it comes to critiquing technical skill but critiquing fine art can be like trying to net a cloud.

'Fine Art' always conjures up images of a shield with a big red target painted on it. :)

It does offer some protection, but once you add an intellectual dimension to the work, something outside of the image (like process), then the onus is on you to explain why it's important. If the image alone isn't doing that for you, then it’s going to be that much harder for people to critique, let alone appreciate. The words that attracted me to the CA forum were 'studies, and discovery' more so than 'fine art.' It seemed like the most neutral place to post things that were mainly about personal exploration and learning. I don’t know what I expected in terms of a critique, so I’m happy enough if somebody just takes a look. I don't think that the people here are hostile to anyone trying to make it with a gallery though. You can be irritated with a Hockney painting, the same way you can be irritated with a particular book cover, or video game, without slamming illustration as a whole. The issue with Fine Art today is that the words themselves carry so much baggage - they make it easy to take jabs. I bet if that same Hockney painting was on the cover of a bestselling novel though, the same people would probably be irked by it.

I don't know what to say about the gallery scene. There are some galleries that I really like, and some that seem completely ridiculous, and many thousands that I've never heard of I'm sure. I imagine making a living at anything is pretty rough right now. If you have the option to stay in school, you might want to consider riding that train a little longer. You might end up enjoying the prospect of teaching, and then a degree would come in handy. Also, the MFA is a terminal degree in the US (since we don't award doctorates for the fine arts) which means that, if you were good at it, you could probably teach at a collegiate level. Something to think about anyway, since the job market is so weaksauce right now. If I could go back, I think I would have tacked on a third major and just hung around for another year or two.

As for the forum, the CA atelier states pretty clearly that they don't endorse a distinction between the fine arts and the commercial arts, so its kind of a nod that we have a section up there already. I do think it might be a good idea though, if each Art section had a sticky with a link to any related discussion forums.

[FallenGodX11]

Thanks everyone on the advice on the fine art career. I appreciate all your help. If anyone else has good advice on a fine art path please keep posting.

[Shehaub]

There are two forums that I know of that are geared towards fine art:

Wetcanvas (http://www.wetcanvas.com/) - There is a little bit of everything here. I would say that most of the members of this forum are older than the crowd here. There are, however, some professional fine artists participating there have lots of experience and work with galleries as well as some of the art workshops and shows that happen all over the US. To get a good critique, you have to post in the structured critique because most people there try to be encouraging to a fault.

Art Papa (http://www.artpapa.com/forums/) - This is a fine art realism board. I am not a member of this board. I only lurk. There are some very strong opinions on this board and some pretty heated debates get going at times. I lurk this particular forum because it has some very good info on traditional realism. As with all boards, there is a mixed bag of people that participate on this board. The age group of this board is mostly an older group.

This board covers an interesting range. I think that fine artists can learn a lot from commercial artists and vice versa. It just makes things more interesting and opens up a lot of options for both sides.

[JJacks]

I also want to be a fine artist but I'm not counting on being able to live off of it for a long while...if I can ever reach that level at all. Producing art is already expensive with the cost of materials, getting paintings photographed, and framing the paintings. I spoke to my Painting instructor at school and he said that his paintings do sell for a lot but it barely covers the cost of its production. So he doesn't make a huge profit. I remember when I spoke to another instructor, she had just come from a show that made her thousands of dollars but she had to pay off the debt she was in from the year previous in which her income was not enough to pay the bills. So there are a lot of economic factors and to be a fine artist you have to be willing to sacrifice a lot to make it.

As far as what to paint and what not to paint, certain things sell more than others which is why you have to actively look for a gallery that represents artists that are similar to you. The big thing here are Cowboys and "Indians" and I can't go to them with a weird painting that has nothing to do with the West and say "will you represent me?" But around me there is a lot of artistic growth and places are popping up that are more suited to my tastes. So if your audience is not immediately recognizable you have to go out and search for it.

Just my two cents haha. It's not impossible to be a fine artist but it's a lot of hard work that can be a little ambiguous. The direction is not clear sometimes. So I wish you the best of luck and hopefully you will be selling your paintings in a gallery sometime. :)

[arttorney]

regarding things jasonwclark said about the onus to explain being on you:

What about mystery? I did a series of paintings that depicted cards of different shapes strewn randomly in a pile and seen from above. I did things with the markings on the cards that had a pattern of mathematical sets, or at least group theory stuff going on. (e.g. all the prime numbers are on one shape of card while all the other numbers are on a different shape of card with all the numbers being written in roman numerals or all the numbers being written as mayan numerals but each instance of a particular numeral always appeared on a card of the same color). Sometimes people feel a pull from the mystery being presented, even if it is not obvious.

At a show I was in, I saw a man intently studying one of these paintings (always cool). A friend of mine who was also in the show came around and I started talking to her at a remove about that guy. She told me that he was her father and was a mathematician by education. I am convinced he could see patterns and was either still trying to work it out for sure, or else was checking my work to see if I had screwed anything up.

Different things are going to work for different people, I know, but there are some people who might actually be intrigued if they think they see some kind of a treasure map on your artwork.